@andrew8282 Oh yeah - this has been running so long I forgot that I had already quoted my letter in this thread ..
@Will99 Hi will, Hows it going mate? How did your hearing go? not much this end, still waiting, so frustrating,, arghh
@andrew8282
My hearing went very badly. The tribunal have upheld the variation (and two other variations I was appealing against).
They quoted the regulations which state that it is the amount of taxable income that is to be assessed. They also seemed to suggest that another factor in their decision was that if my appeal was allowed it would impact not just myself but all other NRPs who were landlords with property finance costs.
I was watching this to see what the outcome was. I guess in some ways this was likely to be the result because the law states exactly what the judge said and the judge is there to interpret the law, not change it - whether it's fair or not.
Sorry to read you've been through all this and had all the delays. As I said in a previous post, my ex will receive more property income than I will. C'est la vie.
ive got 30k rental income and mortgage payments are 27k leaving me 3k I also work 25k
the CSA are calculating my income as 47k not 28k double whammy is there anything I can do to top it not seen kids in 3 years how is this fair !!!
Hi, I am in the same situation in 2023 whereby csa don't recognise finance expenses in the maintenance calculation and they are not interested in my reasoning at all. This has meant that based on 20-21 SA figures I am paying my ex twice the amount I earned in net rental income that tax year. A very unfair side effect of the changes to the HMRC changes in taxation rules years ago. Has there been any progress with regards to the earlier debates/ requests through the MPs. Would appreciate a response as I am seriously considering taking my case to the independent tribunal, but just read they aren't much use either? Has anyone had a good experience with the tribunal relating to this subject?
Further to my earlier post. I have found something in CMS' document "How we work out child maintenance A step-by-step guide" that could be of significance, I hope? It states in section 38 relating to variations due to other types of income that the CMS can be asked to consider. At the bottom of the page it states "Also, we must consider whether the variation is 'just and equitable'. This means that we look at whether it is fair to everyone involved in the child maintenance case for the amount of child maintenance to go up or down because of a variation decision" It seems to me that the CMS are not applying this at all ever and therefore are not following their own guidelines. Has anyone had any joy quoting the above in correspondence? Or in a tribunal?
This scenario is surely worthy of press interest. It is entirely within the gift of CMS to use judgement to deduct mortgage interest from the HMRC supplied gross profit figure. They just choose not to.
They've created a ridiculous scenario where some landlords could be making no real profit yet be assessed as making tens of thousands and be expected to pay maintenance from zero income. It's insane.
The government gain no money from it so should sort it. Pity they even need to get involved.
It's clearly unfair and lacking any scrutiny.
Try getting a loan based on the higher figure and see what the lender say. You'll be laughed out of the bank and asked to your deduct our mortgage costs.
Is there a journalist out there who could raise this.
What about ARLA